Re: Generating June 9 working drafts

Jerry has landed it. The spec LGTM.

On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Jerry Smith (WPT) <jdsmith@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> I’m working on it now.
>
>
>
> *From:* Mark Watson [mailto:watsonm@netflix.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 9, 2016 7:06 PM
> *To:* David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>
> *Cc:* Jerry Smith (WPT) <jdsmith@microsoft.com>; Paul Cotton <
> Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>; Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>;
> public-hme-editors@w3.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: Generating June 9 working drafts
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 9, 2016, at 7:03 PM, David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com> wrote:
>
> Jerry or Mark, can you remove those four?
>
>
>
> I could remove them, but not until about 2-3 hours from now.
>
>
>
> ...Mark
>
> I'm replying to Henri in #110. I don't think it's strictly related to
> #110, so I don't consider that bocking.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Jerry Smith (WPT) <jdsmith@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> Perhaps remove then #192, #207, #101 and #85; plus Issue 3?
>
>
>
> That leaves #221, #219, #242 and #237 for cleanup during CR.
>
>
>
> *From:* David Dorwin [mailto:ddorwin@google.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:50 PM
> *To:* Jerry Smith (WPT) <jdsmith@microsoft.com>
> *Cc:* Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>; Philippe Le Hegaret <
> plh@w3.org>; Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>; public-hme-editors@w3.org
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: Generating June 9 working drafts
>
>
>
> One (ISSUE 3) does not have an issue, but I think we can remove it.
> Summary:
>
>    - #192, #207, #101: We could remove all those related to VNext issues.
>    - #221: I think PING members plan to review now that we've addressed
>    #117, etc.
>    - ISSUE 3: I'm not sure there is anything to do here. I heard the
>    Second Screen CG is including this topic in their re-charter.
>    - #85: Covered by the at risk statement.
>    - #219, #242 and #237 seem like something we can address in CR.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Jerry Smith (WPT) <jdsmith@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> There are 10 issue boxes in the spec, I believe all with active issues
> behind them.  I assumed they’d not be removed for CR, but perhaps later.
>
>
>
> *From:* Paul Cotton
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 9, 2016 6:38 PM
> *To:* Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>; David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>;
> Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>; Jerry Smith (WPT) <
> jdsmith@microsoft.com>
> *Cc:* public-hme-editors@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: Generating June 9 working drafts
>
>
>
> There are two red ISSUE boxes in the EME SOTD for #192 AND #221.  Can
> these be removed?  Are there any others in the document?
>
> <image001.jpg>
>
> /paulc
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philippe Le Hegaret [mailto:plh@w3.org <plh@w3.org>]
> Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 9:29 PM
> To: Jerry Smith (WPT) <jdsmith@microsoft.com>; Matt Wolenetz <
> wolenetz@google.com>; Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
> Cc: David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>; Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>;
> public-hme-editors@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Generating June 9 working drafts
>
>
>
> One change here. Our systems [1] switched to tomorrow (June 10) already
> (?).
>
>
>
> If it is issued, the CfC for EME will now have to use
>
>
>
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-encrypted-media-20160610/
>
>
>
> Philippe
>
>
>
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tr-notifications/2016Jun/
>
>
>
>
>
>